User Profile: tmarends


Member Since: September 03, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [11] September 16, 2015 at 1:28pm

    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) — “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

    M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996) — “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    Lawrence v. Texas (2003) — “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

    Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) — “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” and “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.”

  • [12] September 16, 2015 at 1:21pm

    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974) — “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) — “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

    Carey v. Population Service International (1977) — “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

    Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) — “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    Turner v. Safley (1987) — “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”

  • [20] September 16, 2015 at 1:15pm

    Maynard v. Hill (1888) — The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

    Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) — SC ruled that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942) — SC ruled that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

    Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) — “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

    Loving v. Virginia (1967) — “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) — “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

    Responses (4) +
  • [-2] September 6, 2015 at 11:52pm

    “The three-page motion does not include arguments as to why Davis should be released but amends Davis’ earlier appeal of the judge’s order.”

    I’m sorry… it sounds more and more like Ms Davis is just being played by her “attorneys”… they are not interested in her at all… it’s all about lining their own pockets.

    Responses (4) +
  • [19] September 4, 2015 at 4:54pm

    Kentucky law mandates that the County Clerk office issue marriage licenses. If she wants that law changed, she should work WITH the KY Legislature.

  • [15] September 4, 2015 at 4:45pm

    Under KY law, the County Judge Executive CAN issue licenses in the absence of the County Clerk. Since she’s in jail, she is absent. If they have the name of the Judge Executive, they are Legal.

    Responses (2) +
  • September 4, 2015 at 10:49am

    She was refusing to allow her deputy clerks from issuing licenses because they still have her name on them, which is a requirement of KY law (that the county clerks name is on all licenses where issued). The court cannot change that, unless there is a valid reason to rule that requirement as unlawful, which it is not. That is up to the KY legislature to change that requirement.

  • September 3, 2015 at 10:07pm

    @JRCahill — The law restricting marriage to a couple with different genders (1 man/1 woman) was ruled unconstitutional. The genders of the couple seeking a marriage license can no longer be used to keep a license from them. The other marriage laws are still intact. If a couple meets all LEGAL requirements they should be issued a license.

  • [7] September 3, 2015 at 9:31pm

    @Joshua — The Supreme Court did NOT make law, they interpreted law, which is their authority… they determined that restricting marriage based on gender to be unconstitutional. Therefore the Kentucky law limiting marriage based on the genders of the couple is NO LONGER VALID, and NOT ENFORCEABLE.

  • [50] September 3, 2015 at 5:05pm

    The US Supreme Court ruled that the laws mandating the genders of the couple requesting a license as unconstitutional… all OTHER marriage laws remain intact. Part of her duties as county clerk, a job she sought, is to ensure couples meet all LEGAL requirements, which the couples who have been denied do. She has been found as failing to meet her LEGAL responsibilities for the JOB she sought, and intimidating her office from exercising their LEGAL duties as well. She is NOT following the laws of KY, which is why she was found in contempt.

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] September 3, 2015 at 3:36pm

    The Supreme Court did NOT make a new law… they ruled that an existing law limiting the applicants for a marriage license be of different genders as unconstitutional. All other laws in regards to marriage licenses are still intact. As part of her “job” as county clerk, under the laws of KY, she cannot refuse a couple a license if they meet all requirements for it… the genders of the two applicants can no longer be considered. She is in violation of her oath of office for refusing to issue a license to a couple who meets all legal requirements.

  • [2] September 3, 2015 at 3:29pm

    The law restricting the gender of the two applicants was ruled unconstitutional. All other laws as to the issue of marriage licenses remain intact. As long as the applicants met all other legal requirements, she can not refuse them the license based solely on the gender of the two applicants. Her “job” was to ensure they met all legal requirements as defined by the state…. which she continued to refuse to do.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] September 3, 2015 at 3:24pm

    The judge had no legal authority to fire her. That can only be done by the state legislature.

  • [1] September 3, 2015 at 3:22pm

    She wouldn’t allow her deputy clerks to process the licenses because they still had her name on them, as required by KY law.

  • September 3, 2015 at 3:19pm

    The KY law is that all county clerks issue licenses. The licenses contain the name of the county clerk whether the county clerk does the actual processing. This is her issue… she doesn’t want her name on the licenses, but that is what KY law requires.

    Responses (1) +
  • [5] September 3, 2015 at 2:56pm

    The judge didn’t have the authority to fire her. SHE refused to allow her deputy clerks to process the licenses because they had her name on them, as required by STATE LAW. If you don’t like the state law, then by all means try and get it changed.

  • [2] September 3, 2015 at 2:51pm

    Under KY law the county clerk issues all licenses. In the absence of the clerk the county executive can issue them. Taxpayers should not be forced to go to another county to get government services. The state legislature can change the law to allow someone other than the county clerk to issue licenses, but that has not happened… yet. Until it does, she was required to issue licenses for her county, which she continued to refuse to do… and she refused to allow her deputies to do so as the licenses still had her name on them — which is STATE LAW.

    As for your alcohol example… you are NOT being discriminated against, as it is applied equally to all citizens in your county. Don’t like the law, try to have it changed, legally. Until it does, the people who have been granted licenses to sell alcohol must follow the rules established in their license or risk losing the license and no longer able to sell alcohol.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] September 3, 2015 at 2:41pm

    Under KY law, she can be impeached… or removed by an act of the state Legislature. The judge did not have the power to “fire” her, just physically keep her from the office, via jail time.

  • [4] September 3, 2015 at 2:35pm

    Yes… he is

  • [8] September 3, 2015 at 1:38pm

    The County Judge Executive CAN issue licenses in KY, but only with the absence of the county clerk, or a vacancy of the office. Putting her in jail creates the absence, so now licenses can be issued. The judge, a Republican, felt he had no other option to get licenses issued again in that county.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love